Madras High Court
The Management vs Mr.S.Palani on 6 June, 2022
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.11873 of 2022
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Region,
Ponnerikarai Near Karapettai Post,
Chennai-Bangalore Highways,
Kancheepuram District – 631 552. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.S.Palani
2.The Special Deputy Commissioner for Labour,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the order dated 12.09.2017 made in A.P.No.187 of 2014 passed by the 2nd
respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
For R2 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records relating to the order dated 12.09.2017 made in
A.P.No.187 of 2014 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.09.2017
made in A.P.No.187 of 2017 passed by the 2nd respondent by setting aside the
dismissal order passed by the petitioner against the 1st respondent. According
to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has joined as Conductor in the
petitioner/Corporation and he remained unauthorised absence for the duty
from 16.10.2013. However, the petitioner/corporation taking a lenient view
and permitted him to join duty on 21.01.2014. But the 1 st respondent once
again remained absent from 02.02.2014. Thereafter, the 1st respondent was
dismissed from service by the petitioner/Corporation by the order dated
25.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner/Corporation has filed A.P.No.187 of
2014 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the
2nd respondent seeking approval for the order of dismissal passed against the
1st respondent. But the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent by the
impugned order dated 12.09.2017. Hence, this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
during his service in the petitioner/corporation has committed various
misconduct and he committed 31 misconducts out of which he was punished
on 18 occasions for unauthorised absence. The said fact has not been
considered by the 2nd respondent in proper perspective and consequently, the
2nd respondent set aside the punishment imposed by the
petitioner/corporation.
4. The petitioner/Corporation has also raised grounds that the 2nd
respondent has not followed the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in interfering with the impugned punishment order imposed by the
petitioner/Corporation.
5. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, it
reveals that both the parties are not examined the witnesses on their side. On
the side of the petitioner/Corporation, nine documents were marked and the
1st respondent has not marked any documents before the 2nd respondent.
There is no satisfactory explanation has been given by the
petitioner/Corporation by adducing any oral and documentary evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
6. According to the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed
after a delay of four years. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,
wherein it has been stated that a certified copy of the impugned order dated
12.09.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent was not furnished to the
petitioner/corporation. The petitioner/Corporation received the said order by
a letter dated 28.02.2018 from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner to challenge the
impugned order.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has received the copy of the
impugned order on 28.02.2018. Even thereafter, there is a delay of more than
four years in approaching the Court to challenge the said order. Further, there
is no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner/Corporation
for delay and laches in approaching this Court.
8. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble Apex
Court, in a case, reported in 1994 SCC, Supl.(2) 195 [Ex-Capt. Harish
Uppal vs. Union of India), has held as follows;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
'8. The petitioner sought to contend that because of
laches on his part, no third party rights have intervened and that
by granting relief to the petitioner no other person's rights are
going to be affected. He also cited certain decisions to that
effect. This plea ignores the fact that the said consideration is
only one of the considerations which the court will take into
account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from
laches. It is not the only consideration.
It is a well-settled policy of law that the parties should
pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over
their rights. That is the whole policy behind the Limitation Act
and other rules of limitation. If they choose to sleep over their
rights and remedies for an inordinately long time, the court may
well choose to decline to interfere in its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and that
is what precisely the Delhi-High Court has none. We cannot say
that the High Court was not entitled to say so in its discretion.”
9. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
S.Vaidhyanathan Vs.Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2018 SCC
OnLine, in para 14, it is held as under ;
“14. There is an inordinate delay and laches on the part of
the appellant. What is latches is as follows:
“Laches or reasonable time are not defined under any
statute or Rules. “Latches” or “Lashes” is an old french word
for slackness or negligence or not doing. In general sense, it
means neglect to do what in the law should have been done for
an unreasonable or unexplained length of time. What could be
the latches in one case might not constitute in another. The
latches to non-suit, an aggrieved person from challenging the
acquisition proceedings should be inferred from the conduct of
the land owner or an interested person and that there should be
a passive inaction for a reasonable length of time. What is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
reasonable time has not been explained in any of the enactment.
Reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case.” ......
In para 16 of the judgment cited supra, it is held as under;
16. Delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation
destroys the remedy itself. Delay amounting to laches results in
benefit of discretionary power being denied on principles of
equity. Loss of limitation resulting into depriving of the remedy,
is a principle based on public policy and utility and not equity
alone...............”
10. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K.Thangappan reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 6, held as
follows:
“6. Delay or latches is one of the factors which is to be
borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on
the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in
conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances,
causes prejudice to the opposite party'.....
16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be
lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after
17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time.
They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17
workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not
implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the
State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after
1982, those employees who were employed or who were
recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could
not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It
is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised
in favour of those who approach the court after a long time
Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable
jurisdiction.
11. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not approached the court
within the reasonable time. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above
cited decisions, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present
writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and latches.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dm
To
The Special Deputy Commissioner for Labour,
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
dm
W.P.No.12412 of 2022
06.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
